Haskett
is a Texas resident who is representing himself in this
lawsuit pro se.[1] This is one of a series of strikingly
similar lawsuits Haskett has filed in this Court, each
alleging that various Defendants unlawfully discriminated
against him because (according to Haskett) their sole reason
for not hiring him was that they guessed his age after
reading his resume online. In each of these lawsuits,
Defendants have all denied any such age-based discrimination,
and they have instead vigorously defended themselves by
pointing to a number of reasons for their decision(s) not to
hire Haskett, including allegations that potential employers
found Haskett contentious, and that he had performed poorly
on prior occasions.

This
case is notable for the fact that T.S. Dudley has filed an
abuse of process counterclaim on Haskett, whom it
characterizes as an out-of-control vexatious pro se
litigant who also enjoys the advantage of litigating in
forma pauperis, i.e., at taxpayer expense. The Court
recently granted summary judgment for T.S. Dudley on
Haskett's claims against it. Dkt. 175. Now, the Court
turns to T.S. Dudley's own motion for summary judgment
against Haskett for abuse of process, an intentional tort
under Texas law. Dkt. 113. The Court has previously set out
the factual and procedural history of this case, as well as
the relevant summary judgment standards. Those standards are
incorporated and applied herein.

The
Fifth Circuit recently addressed the tort of abuse of process
under Texas law, in Matter of Dallas Roadster, Ltd.,846 F.3d 112, 124-25 (5th Cir. 2017). The Fifth Circuit noted
that, to succeed on an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff
must show the following three elements: (1) "the
defendant made an illegal, improper or perverted use of the
process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the
process;" (2) "the defendant had an ulterior motive
or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper
use of the process;" and (3) "damage resulted to
the plaintiff as a result of such illegal act."
Id. (citing Liverman v. Payne-Hall, 486
S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2015, no pet.) (cleaned up)).

In its
motion, T.S. Dudley contends, "Plaintiff has improperly
used his blatantly baseless claims for age discrimination as
a threat to blackmail Dudley into paying over money to him
and has attempted to interfere with Dudley's business
relationships. Additionally, Plaintiff has abused the
discovery process and is seeking information well beyond the
scope of discoverable material in a further attempt to
alienate Dudley from its clients and contractors.
Plaintiff's use of this action as a tool to blackmail
Dudley and seek information about individuals and entities
that have nothing to do with his ADEA claim constitute an
improper use of process for an improper purpose." As
evidence to support its motion, T.S. Dudley points to
Haskett's wide, and often improper, discovery requests
and notices in this suit and others, contending that he has
"improperly used the Court's processes to seek
information about individuals and entities who are completely
unrelated to his claim for age discrimination against
Defendant and has threatened the use and continued use of the
Court's processes seeking to blackmail Defendant into
paying over an unjustified amount in settlement." T.S.
Dudley also points out that, in this case, Haskett has even
threatened to subpoena the EEOC investigator assigned to his
claim and that Haskett has an "extensive litigation
history" in this and other courts.

In
fact, at least one court now requires Haskett to seek its
permission before filing any lawsuits in that jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Order Directing Phillip David Haskett to
File a Motion for Permission to Appear Pro Se for All Future
Cases in Which He Wishes to Appear as a Plaintiff in the
Fourth Judicial District, The Sarah D'ann Haskett
Educational Trust v. Stevens, Case No. 09CV264, District
Court for El Paso County, Colorado, dated April 15, 2010
(finding Haskett had been involved in more than 60 cases in
the State of Colorado, had engaged in problematic behavior
during discovery and "misused the legal system for the
purposes of harassing and intimating his adversary");
Haskett v. Flanders, No. 13-CV-03392-RBJ-KLM, 2015
WL 5258848, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2015), aff d, 654
F.App'x 379 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting, "Mr. Haskett
has a reputation for frivolous litigation" and that he
is "something of a bully" who "engages in
litigation as a hobby, " including bragging "I
invented the concept of phony counterclaims as bargaining
chips.").

Nonetheless,
although these items might be said to paint a rather
unflattering and unpalatable picture of Haskett, they do
not necessarily establish that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact as to Haskett's intent with
respect to this lawsuit. After considering the
relevant case law regarding abuse of process, and in light of
the summary judgment record before it, the Court finds that
the summary judgment evidence presented by T.S. Dudley fails
to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment on its
abuse of process claim at this time.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.